moviesfandomcom-20200222-history
Template talk:Editprotected/Archive 1
Documentation is used to mark a protected page for a proposed update. Usage Add this on the talk page of a protected page with the precise wikitext you want to be edited. Example :What you could type at the bottom of the relevant talk page: Wrong category The protected page (why was it fully protected if only an anon vandalized it once, we have semi-protection) should be in category foo with sort key bar: Please replace Category:old by bar ~~~~ :The output would be roughly something like this: ---- Wrong category The protected page (why was it fully protected if only an anon vandalized it once, we have semi-protection) should be in category foo with sort key bar: Please replace Category:old by bar User:Example ---- The template adds the talk page in question to Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests. An admin will see this later, check the talk page, remove the template again, and either edit the protected page as proposed or not - stating what (s)he has done at the place where (s)he removed the template. Updates Text output by which can be used on talk pages of protected templates. See Also * * * Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests Discussion :Add issues below as you see fit, sign with ~~~~ Examples? Could someone show some examples of how this can be used? Is it currently being used anywhere? [[User:Aucaman|'Aucaman']]Talk 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC) : It is particularly useful for the proposed Wikipedia:Stable versions. Its purpose also overlaps and is somewhat easier than Requests for Unprotection. -- 13:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Rationale Why? Because protecting pages that only administrators can edit is inherently anti-wiki and POV. This template tries to minimise that. -- Zondor 06:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Redesign I would like to suggest this template be modified. A lot of the text it contains should be removed from the template itself: ---- This template adds a page to Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. It is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content. This notice is to be placed on the talk page and adjacent to the request text. Please make the request clear and specific as much as possible. It is automatically categorised into Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Administrators will check this category for protected edit requests to process. -- Ec5618 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ? Why was this deleted? Userboxes seemed to be quite popular. I thought they were a great way to say things about yourself without having to write an autobiography. Starla Dear 01:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) : What are you talking about? -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) instructions missing This template's explanation is incomprehensible to most users, and it's missing the instructions. Instead of "This notice is to be placed on the talk page and adjacent to the request text.", this should say: To ask an administrator to edit a protected page, you can add this notice on the talk page adjacent to the request by writing " " without the quotes. --Espoo 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Espoo is right, I couldn't figure it out and had a perfectly valid need for this. Please as some instructions giving the text to be entered. Thanks! Avraham 01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC) :See above -- Omniplex 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Editprotected update request For some time listed itself in the category for requested updates, because it was used here (on its talk page) as example. That's fixed now for some weeks, therefore I hope that a real request here could now work again: Please replace by -- Omniplex 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) :Done. --CBDunkerson 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks, also to Syrthiss who migrated the rest of this zoo. -- Omniplex 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Protected? Why does this template have to be protected? It doesn't have a history of vandalism or edit warring, it's not extensively transcluded at any one time (5 articles at time of writing). I'm assuming the admin who protected it just had protection on the brain when they were reading the template, but I think it's unnecessary and by principle we should start from a no-protection starting point. BigBlueFish 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Edit summary I have modified this template so that users can add the summary of the requested edit. [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'tone']] :I've reverted it. This makes the conversation hard to follow when the template is removed. [[User:Naconkantari|Nacon'kantari']] 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::I was trying to make it consistant with which does allow the user to type in the reason, when the request is comfirmed or denied, the admin simpliy nowikis it or removes the template and keeps the reason, so why not with ? [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'tone']] :Editprotected works fine as is, the nominator just types the request, signs, and adds the tag. The admin removes the tag, writes "done" (or a bit more otherwise), signs, ready. No reason to introduce parameters. -- Omniplex 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Why have these perameters with but not ? I still don't understand. [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'tone']] :It is best not to look at precedents in Wikipedia, but look at each problem separately and find the best solution. Is a summary parameter and Reviewed subcategory necessary and effective in ? Who knows, its not important, we won't be basing the behaviour of {Editprotected} on {Unblock}. What is important is what is neccessary for {Editprotected} to work efficiently and effectively. I have not seen any arguments for adding the summary parameter or Reviewed subcategory - are there good reasons? I don't think so, I think {Editprotected} works fine as is. But by all means discuss, maybe there is something I am missing. Importantly, if someone reverts your change to a popular template, do not revert back until consensus has been reached on the talk page (eg in this case, including me, 3 people have turned up to oppose the addition of the summary parameter). Please revert the template to version before the compulsory summary parameter. If there is a concern that people will try to use a summary parameter but it doesn't exist, perhaps an optional parameter as found in could be added. I don't like it, it's not necessary and makes things more complicated, but perhaps there is a need.--Commander Keane 06:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :I prefer the non-summary version and reverted to it. After seeing three editprotected requests in a row with the silly-looking "The summary is: }", I'm convinced that if people want to explain their rationale for editing the protected page, they prefer to do so outside of the template itself. Kimchi.sg 08:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) ::Sometimes blocked users do this with , I could add an optional paramater but I don't know how to do that, could someone help? [[User:Myrtone86|Myr'tone']] (☏) :::There is no point to this change. —Centrx→''talk'' • 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Adding ar Can someone please add ar:قالب:! to the interwiki's. Thanks. Jak123 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) :This doesn't look like a template. It looks like a Wikipedia page with sections and bullet points. —Centrx→''talk'' • 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) what if the talk page is protected too!! How can I request to edit a protected page when even its talk page is protected (so I cannot put the template)?? I think protecting talk pages should not be allowed. I would like to edit Angry Nintendo Nerd, a website that attracts thousands of fans and is an important internete meme in the video game community.--Sonjaaa 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :I believe you open the log, look up the username of the admin who protected the talk page, and if the admin is still active in Wikipedia, put your request on the admin's user talk page. If that fails, escalate the request to WP:RFPP or, if the talk page is a protected deleted page, WP:DRV. --jan Tepo (toki) 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Template:disambig On Template:disambig please add the following: "For templates to place on other pages directing a reader to the disambiguation page, see Template:otheruses." This can be added at the bottom of the page. Alternatively, add: " See Also * Template:otheruses" Reason for this documentation: users looking for the "otheruses" templates but who have forgotten what they're called will likely look for "Template:Disambiguation" which will take them to "Template:disambig". --Coppertwig 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) What if the request is denied? The current text of the template has: "Please remove this template after the request is fulfilled." But what if the request is denied? Shouldn't this be "fulfilled or denied"? Actually, perhaps there should be a somewhat more defined indication of closure, along the lines of AfD closures, perhaps by modifying the template invocation to or . --LambiamTalk 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC) :I've changed "fulfilled" to "handled", and added a section to the documentation on what to do upon resolution, e.g. change to . —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 13:35Z To request protection A lot of people seem to use this tag when they really want WP:RFPP, or when they are just discussing a possible edit but have no specific proposal. At the risk of making the template a little longer, I think it would be worthwhile to make the template more self-explanatory. What about: Thoughts? CMummert · talk 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :Hmm. I'll probably implement the top half tomorrow unless someone objects; I don't want to do the whole thing without some a second opinion. CMummert · talk 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ::Go for it. Personally, I've never seen it used to request protection, but I have several occasions where this no clue as to what the edit should be. I'm all for making this box easier to find (i.e. bigger. Is there any way to make the template work like ? Maybe add a parameter for the requested edit (wikisytax and all, i.e. ). And after the edit, the category will be removed,but the template is kept. John Reaves (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :::It might be harder to editors to use the template if it had more complicated syntax such as parameters; they are already familiar with the current setup, which is simple and elegant. I rephrased the template slightly which removed an unsightly line break (for me at least) and added a link to the instructions. I also limitd the width to 5.5in, which will make it easier to find by making it taller. CMummert · talk 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ::::Okay, good point. I forgot to mention earlier that I bolded "specific description" to try and get the point across. I say go ahead and implement the new template, I think that will be the best way to get comments on the new version rather than waiting for them here. John Reaves (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Unnamed Discussion Why isn't the template FULLY PROTECTED? Do any of you want people vandalizing this page? TobytheTramEngine There is something wrong, it states that batista is the currnet world heavyweight champion, but the Undertaker defeated at wresltemania 23, and the last man standing match at backlash 2007 ended in a draw after a spear to the bottom of the entrance ramp, i hope you fix this big mistake. :This template doesn't appear on articles, only talk pages. And most of the time it is on about 8 talk pages. So there is no enough risk to justify full protection. CMummert · talk 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC) : I see. Thanks! TobytheTramEngine